    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     A BAD YEAR FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN VIETNAM

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
                            GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
                          INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JUNE 7, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-137

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,

                          or http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    30-344PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       KAREN BASS, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   AMI BERA, California
    PAUL COOK, California                LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             DINA TITUS, Nevada
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York              NORMA J. TORRES, California
    DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York     BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
        Wisconsin                        ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
    ANN WAGNER, Missouri                 TED LIEU, California
    BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
    FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
    BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
    JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah

         Amy Porter, Chief of Staff      Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director

                   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
                                     ------

        Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
                          International Organizations

                   CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         KAREN BASS, California
    DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York     AMI BERA, California
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
        Wisconsin                        THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
    THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Joseph Cao, former Member of Congress..............     9
    Nguyen Dinh Thang, Ph.D., executive director, Boat People SOS....    18
    Ms. Dinah PoKempner, general counsel, Human Rights Watch.........    27
    ``Anthony Le'' (an alias), spokesperson, Brotherhood for
      Democracy......................................................    37

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    The Honorable Joseph Cao: Prepared statement.....................    13
    Nguyen Dinh Thang, Ph.D.: Prepared statement.....................    21
    Ms. Dinah PoKempner: Prepared statement..........................    31
    ``Anthony Le'': Prepared statement...............................    40

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    56
    Hearing minutes..................................................    57
    The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress
      from the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on
      Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International
      Organizations:
      Vietnam's Persecution of H'Mong Christians, prepared by Hmongs
        United For Justice...........................................    58
      Statement by the Hoa Hao Buddhist Congregation Central Overseas
        Executive Committee..........................................    65
      Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in
        Congress from the State of California........................    68
    Written responses from ``Anthony Le'' to questions submitted for
      the record by the Honorable Alan S. Lowenthal, a Representative
      in Congress from the State of California.......................    70

                     A BAD YEAR FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN VIETNAM

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2018

                           House of Representatives,

                     Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,

             Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,

                         Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC.

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in
    room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
    Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Smith. The hearing will come to order and good
    afternoon. Sorry for the delay to our witnesses. We did have a
    series of votes and both Ms. Bass and I were delayed so I
    apologize for that.
        It has been, ladies and gentleman, as you know, a very bad
    year in Vietnam for human rights. Since the beginning of 2018
    alone, the Vietnamese Government has handed out sentences
    totaling over 100 years in prison and house arrest to human
    rights defenders and democracy advocates.
        In the past year alone, 22 bloggers have been jailed as
    well as six members of the Brotherhood for Democracy. An
    outrageous 15-year sentence was given to Nguyen Van Dai, whose
    wife, Vu Minh Khanh, testified before this committee back in
    2016.
        I will note, parenthetically, we are hoping for his
    release. I would note, parenthetically, that I met with Nguyen
    Van Dai.
        Matter of fact, Dr. Thang helped to arrange it in Hanoi in
    the year 2005 and virtually everyone except one other person--
    he was a lawyer representing a number of people on human rights
    cases--were all detained by police and couldn't come and meet
    in his Hanoi law office.
        It was really very, very discouraging and also an insight
    into how repressive the Communist government regime is in
    Vietnam.
        I would note that Scott Flipse, who has done yeoman's work
    for years and is right behind me here, met with Nguyen Van Dai
    in Hanoi in 2007 and 2009 while he was in prison.
        So we have had a long-standing concern that we have
    expressed over and over again for him and for the others who
    have been held unjustly by the Vietnamese Government.
        The Vietnamese Government has gotten a free pass on human
    rights for far too long. There are currently at least 169
    political religious prisoners in Vietnam including bloggers,
    labor union activists, and democracy advocates and religious
    leaders.
        Freedom House rates Vietnam as not free and possessing of
    some of the world's highest press in internet restrictions.
        The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
    again this year recommended that Vietnam be designated as a
    country of particular concern for egregious religious freedom
    abuses.
        I would note that I am disappointed when the new list came
    out and I did personally lobby the administration. We didn't
    get any luck with the last administration or with the Bush
    administration, which took it off CPC category, and so far not
    yet with the new Trump administration.
        U.S. policy has failed the Vietnamese people. This is a
    bipartisan criticism. We have enriched Vietnam's Communist
    leaders and coddled their interests at the expense of the hope
    and desires of the Vietnamese people for liberty and human
    rights, which they are striving to achieve but have been,
    unfortunately, repressed.
        The Trump administration does have an opportunity to bring
    about real reforms in Vietnam if and only if human rights
    improvements are linked to better U.S.-Vietnamese relations.
        The U.S. has leverage to encourage reform. Vietnam needs a
    strong U.S. partnership, particularly as China's aggressiveness
    increases.
        The question is will there be leverage and will this
    leverage be used to help the people of Vietnam or will our
    acquiescence or indifference be used to help the Communist
    leaders?
        I have been to Vietnam a number of times on human rights
    trips. I've met with its rights advocates--young activists--for
    decades. The younger generation in Vietnam--66 percent of
    Vietnam is under the age of 40--looks to the U.S. as a land of
    opportunity and a land of freedom.
        This generation wants the same liberties enjoyed by their
    relatives living in California, Texas, Virginia, Louisiana, in
    my home state of New Jersey, and so many other places where
    former Vietnamese have flourished.
        They want to speak freely, blog freely, worship God freely,
    and be free to choose and change their leaders. Failing to
    press for concrete human rights improvements underestimates
    U.S. leverage and will disappoint the young generation of
    Vietnam, who are that country's dynamic future.
        The President will face pressure from his advisors and the
    business community, especially the business community, to look
    at Vietnam through the lens of trade deals and containment of
    China.
        Hopefully, he will be able to see the situation more
    clearly than past administrations, and that's a bipartisan
    criticism. Both Republicans and Democrats in the White House
    have not done what they could have done to make a difference.
        No government that represses its own people or restricts
    fundamental freedoms can be a trusted ally of the United
    States.
        No government that censors the internet, tortures, and
    jails dissidents, crushes civil society should be given
    generous trade and security benefits without conditionality.
        Robust championing of individual rights will meet with some
    success, if recent history is our guide. The Vietnamese
    Government has responded to concerns expressed by the last two
    administrations when they linked human rights improvements to
    better U.S.-Vietnamese relations.
        Whether to gain entry into the World Trade Organization--
    WTO--the TPP--Trans-Pacific Partnership--or to address U.S.
    concerns over religious freedom, the Vietnamese Government took
    steps when we insisted and when they were pressed by American
    Presidents.
        It is when the U.S. loses interest in human rights that
    conditions regress, as it has in the past year. The business of
    the Communist party is staying in power and repressing those
    that they believe will challenge their power.
        They will not embrace human rights improvements or the rule
    of law unless it's a firm condition of better relations with
    the U.S.
        Putting human rights and the rule of law at the center of
    bilateral relations is the goal of H.R. 5621, the Vietnam Human
    Rights Act, bipartisan legislation that I introduced last
    month.
        I will note parenthetically that that bill--there is
    different iterations of it but with a lot of input, including
    from some of our witnesses including Dr. Thang, has passed the
    House four times.
        It always gets over to the Senate and holds are placed on
    it, and those holds are to the detriment of the Vietnamese
    people. Hopefully this year we will see a change.
        The bill emphasizes the connection between human rights
    improvements and U.S. interests and states that U.S. policy
    should prioritize the freedom of religion, freedom of the
    press, internet freedom, independent labor unions--which are
    nonexistent--the protection of women and girls from
    trafficking, and advances in the rule of law as critical
    components of both U.S.-Vietnamese relations and any U.S.-led
    effort to ensure free and open Indo-Pacific region.
        And I mentioned the bill had passed four times--three times
    as a free-standing bill, once as an amendment--and even then
    when Frank Wolf was willing to get it into an appropriations
    bill, a senator, stepped in and objected and out it came. So
    it's time for that to end.
        I would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague,
    Ms. Bass, for any comments you might have.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today's
    hearing and bringing attention to the myriad of human rights
    violations in Vietnam.
        Just over 1 year ago, we had an important hearing on how
    religious freedom and human rights in Vietnam are critical to
    the U.S. national interest.
        Starting from the restoration of diplomatic relations with
    Vietnam in 1995, the bilateral relationship with the United
    States has grown considerably, especially in trade and
    investment.
        Over the past decade, U.S. exports to Vietnam have
    increased over ninefold from $10 billion in 2016, U.S. imports
    in 2016 were $10 billion, up 43 percent from 2015 and 823
    percent over the past decade.
        The relationship between our two nations is animated by the
    increase of Vietnamese who have immigrated to the United
    States. Over 1.3 million immigrants call the U.S. home.
        The deepening of this relationship, however, is going to
    depend on how much progress the Government of Vietnam makes on
    critical human rights, namely, free press and political
    descent, land expropriation, religious freedom, workers'
    rights, and human trafficking.
        Unfortunately, the trend lines are not positive. CNN
    reported that six human rights activists in Vietnam have been
    sentenced to between 7 and 15 years in jail.
        As was mentioned by the chairman, the Hanoi People's Court
    has given the longest sentence to human rights lawyer, Nguyen
    Van Dai for trying to overthrow the People's administration.
        The judgment comes amid a wider crackdown on peaceful
    dissent that has seen several bloggers and human rights
    activists given long jail sentences in the last 12 months.
        During 2017, authorities arrested at least 21 bloggers and
    activists or exercising their civil and political rights. They
    were arrested for national security offenses but in reality,
    the offenses included writing articles critiquing the
    government--critical of the government, and peaceful activism.
        Added to this, the Vietnam--Vietnam's legislature is set to
    pass a Cybersecurity law that would provide the government
    another means by which to silence and punish those critical of
    the government.
        This is a deeply disturbing trend and one that the
    Government of Vietnam needs to halt and reverse. I look forward
    to hearing the views, perspectives, and recommendations and I
    want to thank the chairman for allowing two of our colleagues,
    Zoe Lofgren and Alan Lowenthal, to participate in this hearing.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        I'd like to yield to Chairman Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I was not prepared to have an
    opening statement but I will just speak from the heart, which
    is what makes us all Americans is that we believe in freedom.
        That's what it's supposed to do. There are no greater
    champions of freedom that I know than Vietnamese Americans who
    have suffered tyranny and suffered under what now is not even a
    Communist government but a crony capitalist government that is
    totally oppressive of its people. There is very little
    difference between that and what the Communists believed except
    the Communists were sincere.
        The gang that now--because they thought they were going to
    change the world by oppressing everybody and eliminating
    religion, getting rid of democratic notions. The group that now
    controls Vietnam is a group of gangsters that have their clique
    and they are oppressing anyone who might get in their way.
        And one thing I would like to ask the panel, I know--now,
    Mr. Chairman, as you know, I opposed the Magnitsky Act--only
    the title, however.
        I supported and support the idea of holding accountable
    those people who are committing human rights violations--those
    individuals and those specific offices overseas. I don't think
    the Magnitsky was the--was the proper name because I think that
    particular case is still decided as to what happened.
        But the idea of punishing specific individuals overseas for
    their human rights violations is a good idea and I call on you,
    Mr. Chairman, and the rest of my members here, let's find out
    who specifically in Vietnam are conducting these human rights
    and hold them specifically accountable.
        And I pledge my support to the Vietnamese community in
    achieving that goal. Thank you very much and thanks for holding
    this very important hearing.
        Mr. Smith. I'd just point out to my friend, and I'll go to
    Ms. Zoe Lofgren, in our new bill, as I think the gentleman
    knows, we do have a strong admonishment to the administration
    to use the Magnitsky Act and also use the tools that are in the
    International Religious Freedom Act, which I sponsored.
        We named it after Frank Wolf, the great champion of
    religious freedom. But there are brand new tools that
    Brownback--and of course, the President--has now. Brownback is
    the Ambassador-at-Large for religious freedom--he can really
    bring to bear on Vietnam.
        I do think we missed an opportunity when we did not--we,
    the U.S. Government--did not designate Vietnam as a CPC
    country. But that can be done at any time.
        It doesn't have to be done annually. It can be done anytime
    and I think the record absolutely invites that because they
    have a horrific record of religious persecution.
        I'd like to yield to Zoe Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member Bass. I want to thank, you know, Chairman Smith, and
    Representative Lowenthal and I co-chair the Vietnam Caucus and
    although this is an official Foreign Affairs Committee, it's
    very gracious of you to allow us to participate and I
    appreciate it very much.
        This is an important topic how the government in Vietnam is
    using Article 79 to oppress people and to suppress free speech.
    Some of the tools that we might have that have not yet been
    utilized amid the Human Rights Act that we have passed
    repeatedly, the Magnitsky Act that has been mentioned.
        I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and so we can
    get to them sooner. I would just like to ask unanimous consent
    to put my remarks in the record.
        Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered, and thank you.
        I'd like to yield to Mr. Garrett? No?
        Mr. Garrett. I would yield back my time.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Lowenthal, the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Lowenthal. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for
    all attending and I thank also the chairman, Chairman Smith,
    for inviting me to participate and I appreciate that and also
    Ranking Member Bass, I appreciate that.
        As one of the co-chairs of the congressional Vietnam
    Caucus, I've advocated in Congress on the issue of the human
    rights abuses in Vietnam.
        During my time in Congress, I have adopted several
    Vietnamese prisoners of conscience who are unfairly and
    unjustly jailed for their political and religious beliefs. Two
    of my prisoners of conscience, Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh and
    Nguyen Tien Trung, have been released.
        I want to thank BP SOS for their work in helping to
    relocate the pastor, Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh, to the United
    States.
        Unfortunately, this is not the fate of the many of the
    others who have been imprisoned for their act. I want to
    highlight and point out the case of Nguyen Van Dai, a pro-
    democracy activist, co-founder of the Brotherhood for
    Democracy.
        Mr. Nguyen is one of my current prisoners of conscience.
    He's a human rights lawyer, a blogger who was recently
    sentenced to--unjustly to 15 years in prison for what? For
    speaking out against human rights abuses.
        He traveled throughout Vietnam to teach law students and to
    train young human rights defenders on human rights reporting
    mechanisms, how to deal with police interrogation, and then he
    was tried for conducting propaganda against the state. He was
    sentenced to prison and forced to close his office.
        You know, throughout the Tom Lantos--through the Tom Lantos
    Human Rights Commission I've advocated for the release of Mr.
    Nguyen.
        I want to also acknowledge Mr. Anthony Le, who is here
    today. He's a spokesperson for the Brotherhood for Democracy,
    and I look forward to hearing from his testimony.
        Again, I just want to--in concluding, I want to highlight
    another prisoner of conscience of mine, the Most Venerable
    Thich Quang Do, the Supreme Patriarch of the United Buddhist
    Church of Vietnam.
        The Patriarch has been jailed numerous times for leading
    nonviolent protests against the Vietnamese Government and for
    calling for religious freedom.
        He is currently under house arrest. It is unconscionable
    that the Venerable--the Supreme Patriarch is kept in jail or at
    least under house arrest now.
        And then I want to thank--and I'll just end--Chairman Smith
    and the other co-chairs of the Vietnam Caucus for Chairman
    Smith's work on H.R. 5621. I am glad to participate in that and
    to help.
        It imposes, among other things, it would invoke sanctions
    per the Magnitsky Act. It would impose financial and travel
    restrictions for human rights abusers and it calls for the
    release of religious and political prisoners and designates
    Vietnam as a country of particular concern.
        I look forward to the testimonies and, again, I thank the
    chair for inviting.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal.
        Mr. Garrett.
        Mr. Garrett. Thank you, and reclaiming my time. I just felt
    like saying that.
        I want to speak briefly because I know that sometimes in
    this body it's frustrating. We don't feel like we are getting
    things done.
        But I do that people in the Republic of Vietnam watch these
    hearings and so I want to take this opportunity in front of
    this assembled group as well as these distinguished guests to
    speak to my vision at it relates to our interaction with the
    nation of Vietnam.
        I had the honor with the ACYPO prior to my entry into this
    August body to visit Vietnam and what I watched was a dynamic
    emerging economy with opportunity and all sorts of good leading
    indicators for the future.
        However, the good facts as it relates to Vietnam as well as
    their geographic location adjacent to China, who seems more and
    more bent on hegemonic behavior within the region and the
    emerging economy will not aid in relations with the United
    States, despite the fact that we want to encourage those would
    stand against that hegemonic behavior by China, those who would
    engage in good international economic relations, and those
    economies that are vibrant and emerging to do so so long as
    human rights violations persist.
        And I stress that point and that is the only reason that I
    reclaimed time so that those in Vietnam who are watching this
    understand that the people in this body on both sides of the
    aisle appreciate the tools that are at our disposal.
        I don't know what took us so long to get Global Magnitsky
    but I think now that we have it we need to be willing to use
    it--that we should engage in trade relations with nations who
    honor basic human dignities and rights, which include the
    freedom of expression, the freedom to love who you wish,
    worship how you want, or behave how you will so long as you do
    not harm another, and these things aren't occurring in Vietnam.
        So, in essence, Mr. Chairman, as long as Vietnam recognizes
    basic fundamental human rights it's exciting to think about the
    prospects going forward and the relations between our nations,
    particularly in light of the history between our two nations.
        But so long as they stymie the basic expression of
    individuals and disallow individuals from seeking their own
    conscience, soul, and self-determination as it relates to their
    beliefs, then this will stymie this relationship.
        And let that, if I have any contribution to this body
    today, be the message that I send.
        We want to work with you. We want to trade with you. We
    want to be friends with you.
        But if we are who we aspire to be as a nation, we will not,
    until you recognize basic human liberties.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Garrett.
        I'd like to now introduce our distinguished panel,
    beginning from my left, your right. It is a high honor and
    privilege to welcome back Anh Joseph Cao, the first Vietnamese
    American to be elected to the United States Congress,
    representing the 2nd Congressional District of Louisiana.
        At the age of eight, Anh Joseph Cao was placed by his
    mother onto a U.S.-bound plane fleeing Saigon with his 4-year-
    brother and 14-year-old sister.
        His mother stayed behind to raise five children while her
    husband spent 7 years in reeducation camps where he was
    tortured repeatedly.
        In the United States, Anh was separated from his siblings
    and raised by an uncle. Later, he moved to Falls Church,
    Virginia, where he volunteered with Boat People SOS, working to
    protect the last boat people stranded in Southeast Asia and
    Hong Kong, and to secure the resettlement of reeducation camp
    survivors.
        In the fall of 1997, Anh returned to New Orleans to attend
    law school and join the board of directors of Boat People SOS
    there.
        We appreciate his service here in Congress. He was an
    absolute leader on human rights in general but especially for
    the Vietnamese. I thank him for the insights that he has
    provided years to date and I know will again today.
        Next, we will hear from Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang. Dr. Thang
    left Vietnam with his family as a boat person in 1978 and
    arrived in the United States in 1979 after 7 months in a
    refugee camp in Malaysia.
        He graduated with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering in 1986
    and worked for 15 years at a research lab out of the United
    States Navy.
        For the past 35 years, he has been involved in community
    services, refugee protection, and human rights advocacy in the
    United States and in Asia.
        Under his leadership, Boat People SOS has grown into an
    international organization with operations in 14 locations in
    the U.S. and in Asia.
        In 2008, he co-founded the Coalition to Abolish Modern-Day
    Slavery in Asia called CAMSA, which has so far rescued and/or
    assisted over 5,000 victims of labor and sex trafficking.
        He travels extensively to Asia and closely monitors the
    human rights conditions of Vietnam, and I would just note
    parenthetically before going on to our other very distinguished
    witness--Dr. Thang--when the comprehensive plan of action was
    being closed with about 40,000 stranded refugees in Southeast
    Asia, we had very credible insights and information that many
    of the people who were true refugees had been improperly
    screened out by the Clinton administration.
        I held five hearings. Dr. Thang provided insight at those
    hearings that pointed out--which became something that we acted
    upon--that many people were intimidated if they got anything
    wrong in their interviews, which were very, very hostile.
        They weren't U.S. adjudicators. They were people from Hong
    Kong and elsewhere who didn't want them there, and I remember
    going to High Island in Hong Kong and seeing refugees there and
    being told how hostile it was.
        We had one man who was a double amputee who said, ``I have
    a target on my back if I go back. I fought in the war and they
    are trying to forcibly repatriate me,'' and they were calling
    it voluntary repatriation.
        So from those hearings, Dr. Thang and Joseph Rees, who was
    then our chief of staff, and I worked on an amendment that led
    to the ROVR program and over 20,000 Vietnamese people were
    actually given asylum here as a direct result of that program.
        That would not have happened without Dr. Thang and I want
    to thank him for that. I remember offering the amendment on the
    floor and it passed, against all odds. It wasn't supposed to
    pass.
        And one of the things that they told us--and this is part
    of the disinformation campaign that some even--well, many
    people told us that anybody who was going back would have a
    repatriation monitor.
        So I had a hearing on repatriation monitors. Turns out
    there were seven of them, and what did those seven do? When
    they would go back and talk to someone who was forcibly
    repatriated, right next to them would be someone from the
    secret police.
        Who in their right mind is going to say, ``I am being
    discriminated against, or hurt, or in any way maltreated,''
    with that person sitting there?
        So when the repatriation monitor exits the town or hamlet,
    whatever it might be, or a village, they are left to deal with
    those consequences. It was a farce. We used that in our debate
    and, thankfully, we got the ROVR program out of it.
        I would now like to welcome Dinah PoKempner, who is general
    counsel for Human Rights Watch. Her work has taken her to
    Cambodia, the Republic of Korea, Vietnam, the former
    Yugoslavia, and elsewhere, and documenting and analyzing
    compliance with international humanitarian law, war crimes, and
    violations of civil and political rights.
        She has written on freedom of expression, peacekeeping
    operations, international tribunals, U.N. human rights
    mechanisms, cyber liberties and security in refugee law, among
    other human rights topics, and oversees the organization's
    positions on international law and policy.
        A graduate of Yale and Columbia University School of Law
    and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Ms. PoKempner
    also teaches at Columbia University. We welcome her here and
    are grateful that she's here today to testify.
        We will then hear from Anthony Le, who is here today as
    spokesman for the Brotherhood for Democracy. He has
    participated in the struggle for the basic civil rights of the
    Vietnamese workers, farmers, and fishermen under the Communist
    regime.
        He and other assigned members have organized regular
    workshops for workers about their rights and advocacy skills
    for their rights and interest in addition to equipping them
    with the knowledge about organizing independent labor unions
    that currently do not exist, as I said earlier, in Vietnam.
        We deeply appreciate his presence here today, and I also
    would like to welcome Angela Huyen, who will be acting as his
    translator today.
        Congressman Cao, the floor is yours.

        STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CAO, FORMER MEMBER OF
                                CONGRESS

        Mr. Cao. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith.
        First of all, I would like to thank Chairman Smith and
    Ranking Member Bass for holding this important hearing today
    concerning Vietnam's human rights abuses this past year.
        Indeed, it was a bad year for human rights in Vietnam.
    Fortunately, the Vietnamese American community has Chairman
    Smith and members of this subcommittee who have been champions
    for human rights in Vietnam and around the world for as long as
    I can remember.
        As Chairman Smith stated, my first encounter with him came
    in 1996. I first met Chris Smith as an intern of Boat People
    SOS to advocate for the rights of Vietnamese refugees.
        He listened attentively to an unknown 29-year-old
    Vietnamese American who had little experience lobbying for
    human rights on Capitol Hill.
        I returned to Washington, DC, 13 years later as a Member of
    Congress and there was Chris Smith, serving as my colleague and
    guide on the legislative process to bring about changes to the
    human rights conditions in Vietnam.
        Today, I appear before this subcommittee as a former Member
    of Congress and here is Chris Smith, still listening with the
    same attentiveness and determination to make this world a
    better place.
        Thus, my relationship with Chairman Smith spans over two
    decades, and with the help and sometimes even the lead of other
    human rights advocates such as Tham Nguyen, Dr. Tram Ho,
    Reverend Tam Huu Pham, Mr. Truc Ho, and countless others, we
    were able to bring about some changes, but change has been
    slow.
        Severe human rights abuses continue in Vietnam and data
    suggests these abuses are mounting. Mr. Chairman, the
    principles of religious freedom, freedom of expression, freedom
    of conscience, freedom to organize, and the freedom to own
    property have served as the bedrock of our great nation or over
    two centuries.
        Not only do we defend our citizens against those internal
    forces that seek to suppress these freedoms, we fought and have
    given our lives to defend these freedoms against foreign
    nations that threaten to destroy these values.
        We have demanded of ourselves that these freedoms must be
    preserved at all costs and we demand the same from those
    nations with whom we associate.
        In the case of Vietnam, the U.S. Congress has repeatedly
    required that the Vietnamese Government adhere to universal
    standards on human rights for decades, but little has been
    achieved.
        The Vietnamese Government, in 2017, committed what is
    regarded as an outright assault on freedom and universal human
    rights.
        Instead of using the Asia-Pacific Economic Collaboration
    Summit, which was held in Vietnam, to demonstrate its adherence
    to universal standards on human rights, the government
    amplified human rights abuses including against freedom or
    religion or belief.
        According to the USCIRF, the assault on the freedom of
    religion, expression, association, and assembly was nationwide,
    signifying a concerted effort to suppress and silence critics
    and peaceful activists.
        Vietnam systematically harassed, arrested, imprisoned, and
    tortured dissidents, democracy activists, bloggers, and
    religious leaders on an unprecedented scale not since the end
    of the Vietnam War.
        Thus, the Vietnamese Government's previous willingness to
    engage in dialogue on issues of human rights and religious
    freedom was only a ruse to gain benefit, and after the benefits
    have been gained, it reverts back to its old ways.
        But Vietnam has gotten smarter. To be able to wash their
    hands of the crimes committed against those who love freedom,
    they conspire with thugs and criminals to silence dissent.
        One through of such thugs is the Red Flag Association, a
    militant pro-government mob aimed at harassing Catholics. As a
    Catholic myself, I find this particular distasteful.
        The Red Flag Association's goal is to suppress and hamper
    protests against the Formosa Steel Plant, whose illegal toxic
    dumping caused one of the greatest environmental disasters in
    Vietnam and brought suffering to the hundreds of thousands of
    Vietnamese who depended on the rivers and seas for their
    livelihood.
        Moreover, they sowed division between Catholics and non-
    Catholics, intimidate parishioners, vilify priests, attack lay
    leaders, and desecrate churches and homes.
        The association's membership consists of local security
    forces, government employees, members of government-sponsored
    organizations, unemployed adults, and street thugs.
        The Red Flag leaders, among others, consist of Tran Nhat
    Quan, Le Thi Quynh Hoan, Nguyen Trong Nghia. According to the
    USCIRF, the harassment and assaults carried out by the Red Flag
    Association were government directed or government tolerated.
        An egregious incident involving the Red Flag Association
    occurred recently in Nghe An Province. On December 23rd, 2017,
    a group of thugs belonging to the association went to Ke Gai
    Parish and harassed, intimidated, and assaulted the
    parishioners while they were working on an irrigation project
    on their land near the church.
        A criminal complaint was filed with the Nghe An police
    against the perpetrators. Instead of arresting the thugs, Nghe
    An Province police prosecuted the victim and all witnesses of
    the criminal incident.
        Groups belonging to the Red Flag Association also carry out
    acts of harassment and violence in Song Ngoc, Van Thai, and
    Doing Kieu Parishes in Nghe An Province.
        Acts were also carried out in Vinh Diocese in central
    Vietnam and Tho Hoa Parish in Dong Nai Province.
        However, these actions are only the tip of an iceberg.
    Government-sanctioned land grab against religious institutions
    continues unabated for personal profits and economic gains of
    corrupt officials.
        One example is Thu Thiem Convent belonging to a
    congregation of Catholic nuns who, on May 1st, 2018, received a
    notice from the People's Committee of Ho Chi Minh City
    requiring that the church be moved or face confiscation because
    the church is located on a block of land illegally auctioned to
    a developer, who intends to convert the land into a
    marketplace.
        Furthermore, how ironic that the APEC Summit, attended by
    President Trump in November 2017 was held at a resort in Da
    Nang City, owned by the very developer that took over the land
    illegally seized with the use of harassment, detention, and
    torture from Con Dau Parish, and incident that I, and Chairman
    Smith, condemned but was unable to prevent as we looked on
    helplessly.
        However, we are no longer helpless. The passage of the
    Global Magnitsky Human Rights and Accountability Act, which
    President Obama signed into law on December 23rd, 2016, now
    enables this House to bring justice to the victims of Con Dau
    Parish.
        Pursuant to the Global Magnitsky Human Rights and
    Accountability Act, I would like to submit the following
    officials who were involved in the illegal land grab of Con Dau
    Parish for sanction, and for the sake of brevity I'll just
    simply mention their names.
        First is Nguyen Ba Thanh, Tran Van Min, Van Huu Chien, Vo
    Van Thuong, Le Quang Nam, Nguyen Van Tien, Le Van Tam, Tran
    Muu, Huynh Duc Tho, Nguyen Dieu, Nguyen Van Toan, Le Viet Lam,
    Ho Thi Nga, Le Viet Hieu, Phan Huu Phung, Dang Hong Phuc,
    Nguyen Ngoc Tuan.
        The incidents enumerated above is but a fraction of the
    abuses that the Vietnamese Government has inflicted on its own
    people in the past years.
        USCIRF annual report 2018, Vietnam chapter, outlines
    numerous accounts of other acts, which I will not enumerate
    here, and Dr. Thang Nguyen will direct this subcommittee's
    attention to Vietnam's law on belief and religions implemented
    in January of this year, which could open the door to further
    oppression and restriction on the freedom of religion.
        I commend President Trump in his meeting with Prime
    Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc on May 31st, 2017, which stressed the
    importance of protecting and promoting human rights in Vietnam.
        However, I believe more must be done. In agreement with the
    USCIRF, I suggest, one, Vietnam be redesignated as a country of
    particular concern; two, economic and trade negotiations must
    address human rights and religious freedom abuses in Vietnam;
    three, Vietnam must be required to provide concrete benchmarks
    in the promotion of human rights and religious freedom; four,
    Vietnam promptly release prisoners of conscience and democracy
    activists who were arrested and imprisoned under dubious laws;
    five, return and/or adequately compensate victims of illegal
    land grab; six, a transparent system of compensation for the
    victims of the Formosa environmental disaster be implemented;
    and seven, the passage of the Vietnam Human Rights Act.
        In closing, I would like to once again thank Chairman Smith
    and members of the subcommittee for holding this important
    hearing.
        In due respect, I would like to direct the subcommittee's
    attention to the work of Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan.
    When you deprive people their rights to live in dignity, to
    hope for a better future, to have control over their lives--
    when you deprive them of that choice, then you expect them to
    fight for these rights.
        Staying faithful to the principles that make our nation
    great, we will fight for the rights of those who do not have a
    voice.
        We ask that this House and this administration will heed
    the voice of the oppressed around the world, particularly those
    of the people of Vietnam.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cao follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Congressman Cao, thank you very much for your
    eloquent statement and, again, for your leadership.
        Dr. Thang.

    STATEMENT OF NGUYEN DINH THANG, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOAT
                               PEOPLE SOS

        Mr. Thang. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for using this timely hearing to shine
    a spotlight on the worsening human rights condition in Vietnam
    and also thank you for bringing us together because this is an
    opportunity for me to see Dinah PoKempner after 25 years.
        Dinah used to work with us--collaborate with us on projects
    to push back forced repatriation of Vietnamese boat people in
    Hong Kong.
        Since late 2016, we have documented a surge in the number
    of prisoners of conscience and the government's more aggressive
    drive to force members of unregistered churches to renounce
    their faith or to convert to government-created or controlled
    religions.
        We have documented so far some 170 prisoners of conscience
    in Vietnam. I should have added four more--these are Falun Gong
    members which just got sentenced to 3 years of prison recently.
        And one-third of those prisoners of conscience on our list
    are actually religious prisoners. In the first 5 months of this
    year, 23 human rights advocates have been sentenced a total of
    172 years in prison followed by 41 years of house arrest, and
    among them four members of the same Hoa Hao Buddhist family are
    serving a total of 17 years of imprisonment.
        The ongoing brutal persecution of Hoa Hao Buddhists is
    documented in a report by the Hoa Hao Congregation Central
    Overseas Executive Committee, which, with your permission, I
    would like to include as part of this testimony.
        The Government of Vietnam has stepped up its game,
    enforcing followers of independent unregistered churches to
    renounce their faith.
        Forced renunciation of faith has caused the membership of
    the Montagnard Evangelical Church of Christ, which was founded
    by a former prisoner of conscience, Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh,
    that was mentioned by Mr. Lowenthal just now, to plummet from
    its high of 1,500 members just 18 months ago to merely 500
    today, and at least 1,100 families of Hmong Christians in the
    north and central Vietnam have been denied citizenship
    documents and evicted from their villages because they refused
    to abandon their Christian faith.
        The circumstances I describe in detail in a report by Hmong
    United for Justice, which, with your permission again I would
    like to include as part of my testimony.
        Registration requirements is the government's most potent
    instrument to force members of unregistered churches to abandon
    their faith and/or join government-created or controlled
    churches.
        The growth of the latter spells the decline and demise of
    independent religions but is often mistaken as a sign of
    improved religious freedom in Vietnam.
        One prime example is the massive forced conversion of
    millions of Cao Dai followers which has gone unnoticed by the
    international community for the past two decades.
        In 1978, the Vietnamese Government sweepingly abolished the
    Cao Dai Church altogether. Then in 1997, by a directive of the
    Communist Party, the government created a totally new sect
    which repudiates the most fundamental dogma of Cao Dai religion
    and that is direct communion between the Supreme Being and
    humanity through spiritualism. For ease of reference, I will
    call this newly-created government-created sect the 1997 Sect--
    the year it was formed.
        With government support, it has occupied the Holy See of
    the Cao Dai religion in Tay Ninh Province and has barred Cao
    Dai followers--true Cao Dai followers from accessing it.
        In 2008, for instance, the Vietnamese public security
    issued an arrest warrant against Mr. Zun Sun Lung--and he was
    here in Congress to talk to some of you, Members of Congress--
    because he was suspected of organizing a gathering on the
    grounds of the Holy See. He had to be on the run for 8 years
    before he successfully escaped to Thailand and he came to this
    country last year.
        A more recent gathering in 2015 of 200 Cao Dai followers at
    their own Holy See was met with violence by the police and the
    security unit of the 1997 Sect.
        This sect has systematically seized Cao Dai temples
    throughout the country, often using force and violence with
    support of the police and thugs.
        For more than 8 years, for instance, Cao Dai followers in
    Saigon had to conduct prayer services on the pavement outside
    of the temple after it had been taken by force by the
    government-created sect.
        In 2012, as another example, members of the 1997 Sect, with
    the support of government officials and thugs, seized the Cao
    Dai Temple in Binh Duong Province by force.
        The local leader of that sect poured gasoline on a young
    Cao Dai follower and was about to set him on fire when other
    sect members stopped him. Of the hundreds of Cao Dai temples,
    all except 15 have been seized by the government-created sect.
        To coerce Cao Dai followers to convert, the 1997 Sect has
    routinely disrupted religious activities conducted in private
    homes.
        On November 11, 2015, its members, accompanied by the
    public security police and thugs, entered the home of a female
    Cao Dai follower in Tay Ninh Province, broke off the ongoing
    religious ceremony, and trashed food being served to guests
    because she had not asked the 1997 Sect for its blessing.
        We have documented some 20 similar incidents in different
    cities and provinces so far. Less than 5 months ago, earlier
    this year, the 1997 Sect blocked the burial of a 78-year-old
    Cao Dai follower because his mourning family members had
    invited clergy members of the real Cao Dai religion to the
    funeral, and just last week we received reports that many tombs
    of Cao Dai followers being desecrated by the 1997 Sect.
        The government-created sect is different from the Cao Dai
    religion in all aspects--dogma, name, charter, canonical law,
    organizational structure.
        Yet, it occupies the Holy See and uses the letterhead, the
    seal, insignias, of the Cao Dai religion in all its
    communications and publications.
        Foreign governments, including our own Government, have
    thus mistaken it for the Cao Dai religion and misinterpreted
    its activities as greater religious for Cao Dai followers.
        This is analogous--the sect that does not recognize Christ
    as the son of God occupies the Vatican, persecutes Catholics,
    and yet presents itself as the Catholic Church, and the
    international community has been fooled.
        The new law on belief and religion has even more stringent
    registration requirements and will give local authorities even
    more power to curtail unregistered independent religions which
    represent the vast majority of people of faith in Vietnam.
        Three weeks ago, the government of Quang Tri Province
    officially declared that under the new law it is now illegal
    for the local parish priest to conduct prayer services in the
    private homes of his parishioners.
        In the case of the Cao Dai religion, the new law will
    certainly further tip the balance in the favor of imposter. In
    light of the above, I recommend that the U.S. Government,
    again, echoing the recommendation of Congressman Cao,
    redesignate Vietnam as a country of particular concern or at
    least place Vietnam on the international religious freedom
    watch list; apply sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act and
    International Religious Freedom Act against not only government
    officials but also nonstate actors such as the Red Flag
    Association or the 1997 Sect that pretends to be the Cao Dai
    religion, found to be responsible for gross human rights
    violations; press Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally
    release all prisoners of conscience and amend its laws
    including the law on belief and religion to be in compliance
    with all human rights treaties that Vietnam is a state party
    of; work with like-minded governments to raise serious concerns
    on human rights issues at the Universal Periodic Review of
    Vietnam to be held in January of next year; and finally, engage
    directly with the unregistered churches to regular roundtable
    meetings with the representatives, the leaders both in Vietnam
    and in the United States.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thang follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Rohrabacher [presiding]. I am Congressman Rohrabacher.
    Chairman Smith will be back, and I am very honored to chair
    this hearing while he's gone. Let me say hello to my old friend
    as well as new friends and just say that I personally
    appreciate what you're doing here today.
        You have listed for us the heroes and you listed for us the
    villains, and we have news for heroes, which is you are not
    forgotten. You may languish away. You may be just suppressed as
    the Cao Dai and our Montagnard friends are--or there's others
    there who are the villains.
        To the heroes we say you are not forgotten. The Vietnamese
    people who are standing tall during these bad times, you are
    not forgotten. You are not alone.
        And to the villains that torture them and conduct
    themselves in a repressive way toward their own people, we say
    we are going to get you. We are coming for you.
        The people who believe in freedom in this world will not
    forget the crimes that you committed against your own people
    right now.
        So thank you for being specific on what people are being
    actually oppressed and vilified and they're being treated and
    tortured--mistreated and tortured and their rights are being
    taken away specifically, which you both have, and thanks for
    naming the villains as well so that we can hold them
    accountable.
        Like I say, I didn't agree with the title of the Magnitsky
    Act, but I believe--I vote the actually substance of that act
    of holding people accountable. It is a major step forward for
    the United States.
        And now we will have Ms. PoKempner. Go right ahead.

    STATEMENT OF MS. DINAH POKEMPNER, GENERAL COUNSEL, HUMAN RIGHTS
                                 WATCH

        Ms. PoKempner. I am truly honored to be here to testify
    before you, because the last time I presented testimony to
    Congress on Vietnam was around the time of normalization and
    Dr. Thang, I remember working with you in the camps in Hong
    Kong.
        I followed Vietnam for years as the researcher on Vietnam
    for Human Rights Watch, and my heart is heavy because I am sad
    to observe that the progress in human rights we had hoped that
    closer relations might bring has not been realized. To the
    contrary, we see a sharp decline in the very recent years.
        As everyone at this hearing has made clear, human rights in
    Vietnam are deeply restricted in almost every area and it has
    not changed significantly in nearly the quarter century in
    which I have followed the country.
        The Communist Party of Vietnam continues to maintain a
    monopoly on political power, suppresses every conceivable
    challenge to its authority or prestige, and it equates its
    self-preservation with national security.
        All basic rights including freedom of speech, opinion,
    press, association, and religion are conditioned on the
    supremacy of the party and, accordingly, restricted.
        Those who try to assert their rights against authority,
    promote rights awareness or write or speak about human rights
    in any medium face harassment, intimidation, physical assault,
    and imprisonment.
        These are the facts. Repression is not strictly partisan or
    ideological. Criticism of the status quo is enough to bring
    retribution.
        Farmers continue to lose land to development projects
    without adequate compensation. Workers are not allowed to form
    independent unions.
        The entire system of enforcement serves the interests of
    those in power. The courts are not independent. Police use
    torture and beatings to extract confessions.
        Plain-clothes thugs are deployed to harm and intimidate
    people when arrest or more formal confrontation is deemed
    inconvenient. Once detained, people may be further physically
    tortured, ill-treated, denied family visits, adequate food, or
    needed medical care.
        This is all well known. It has been known for decades.
    Despite this, increasing numbers of bloggers and activists have
    called publicly for democracy and greater freedoms but Vietnam
    is not letting them speak.
        In recent years the government has arrested and criminally
    prosecuted an increasing number of people for simply saying
    things critical of the government.
        In 2017, we know police arrested at least 41 people, by our
    count, for sweeping national security offenses that are used to
    punish critical speech, peaceful activism.
        In the first 5 months of this year, the courts convicted at
    least 26 people for political offenses. Although it's always
    difficult to get reliable figures, our impression is the trend
    in numbers of people being arrested and convicted have been
    increasing and the harshness of sentences meted out has
    increased as well.
        And there's no sign of change or progress. To the contrary,
    Vietnam's legislature is scheduled to pass a cybersecurity law
    on June 12th that will provide yet another way people who
    criticize the government or the party can be silenced and
    punished, and it's going to be enlisting local and foreign
    companies in this suppression.
        We are about to publish a press release on this topic. I
    will give you a little preview. This law will give the ministry
    of public security the power to command the erasure of all
    kinds of forbidden content. Forbidden content in Vietnam can be
    anything that is simply disfavoured by the government. It will
    force companies to verify the real names of users, keep those
    names localized in Vietnam, and produce them to public security
    on demand, and then to force companies to deny services to
    those who post what the government--that is, the ministry of
    public security--considers forbidden content.
        It will also access information that is behind a firewall
    via a VPN a crime. This is one of the more repressive
    cybersecurity laws we've seen. We think it's something that
    Congress must take note of.
        Mr. Chairman and--sorry, Representative Rohrabacher,
    members, our chief recommendation to the committee and to the
    U.S. Government in general is to speak much more forcefully and
    publicly to the Government of Vietnam about the problems and
    use the whole of the U.S. Government to do so.
        Every congressional office, every Federal agency that
    engages with Vietnam, and whether it's on trade, military
    assistance, hardware and software transfers, education, or any
    other subject should be expressing deep concern on human rights
    to its counterparts.
        They should be saying in this kind of frank language: We
    see what you're doing and it's tremendously disappointing to
    us. The fact that your government continues to beat, detain,
    incarcerate people for dissent or religious conviction more
    than two decades since the normalization of relations, it's a
    constant source of injury to this relationship between our
    country and yours. Your actions imperil our security and
    economic relationship--a problem which in the context of an
    increasingly dominant China is not a good thing for you and
    it's not a good thing for us.
        Congress should be sending delegations to Vietnam who can
    speak these concerns face to face. We also recommend that you
    list key cases of concern you'd like to see resolved. Tell them
    that you know who they are detaining. Tell them about Nguyen
    Van Dai.
        Tell them about Tran Huynh Duy Thuc, a 51-year-old
    entrepreneur who is serving 16 years in prison for calling for
    democracy and a multi-party political system.
        Why don't you enquire about Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh, also
    known as Mother Mushroom, a woman who is sentenced to 10 years
    in prison for advocating social and political issues such as
    land confiscation, displacement of communities, police
    brutality, freedom of expression.
        Hoang Duc Binh, 34, a very young man sentenced to 14 years
    in prison for his activism to promote the rights of workers and
    fishermen in the context of that disastrous 2016 Formosa toxic
    spill.
        We would also suggest you raise the case of Ngo Hao, a 70-
    year-old human rights and democracy activist currently serving
    a 15-year sentence after writing articles calling for
    transition to democracy in Vietnam.
        According to his family, he's suffering from poor health
    including high blood pressure, gastric ulcers, high
    cholesterol.
        We ask that you raise these very specific cases because
    pressure on specific cases we know leads authorities to speed
    parole or improve conditions for prisoners. I have heard this
    directly from released prisoners. Your words, your actions
    directly affect their lives.
        In fact, they have--even if you--even if it fails to make
    an immediate improvement, they will hear about it. It will
    provide them comfort on a psychological level. It's a good deed
    to do. It's easy.
        We also suggest that should the National Assembly enact the
    cybersecurity law that I just described to you in detail that
    will make online dissent even more dangerous and enlist the
    complicity of U.S. corporations in Vietnamese repression that
    you react and react very strongly in protest.
        Vietnam's actions of this nature should influence how
    Congress views its role in keeping U.S. technology and industry
    from being used for the purpose of stifling rights.
        Freedom of speech, freedom of information, freedom of
    opinion, and freedom of conscience are values that are central
    to this country, to its people, to its democracy, its security
    and, therefore, to its foreign relations.
        Attached with my written testimony is a list of 140
    prisoners detained for merely exercising their rights who are
    currently known to Human Rights Watch.
        Each and every one of them deserves your attention. Thank
    you so much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. PoKempner follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith [presiding]. Thank you so very much for your
    testimony.
        I would like to now go to Anthony Le.

         STATEMENT OF ``ANTHONY LE'' (AN ALIAS), SPOKESPERSON,
                       BROTHERHOOD FOR DEMOCRACY

        Mr. Le. Thank you very much.
        Dearest members of the United States Congress, guests, and
    media organizations who has a concern to human rights in
    Vietnam, my name is Thanh Tung and I am a member of Brotherhood
    for Democracy.
        I have just come from Vietnam. I am here today to speak of
    the ongoing crackdown by Vietnamese authority to Brotherhood
    for Democracy members over the past 5 years.
        Brotherhood for Democracy established in April 2013. There
    was a need for democratic society and sustainable development
    in Vietnam.
        Today, we have more than 100 members of across all regions
    of Vietnam including members and some from around the world.
        Our goal is to promote democracy in Vietnam, develop civil
    society and disseminate the Universal Declaration of Human
    Rights and support other civil society in various projects.
        Our previous work includes the launch of the Brotherhood
    for Democracy, meet the needs of those who wanted to promote
    human rights and democracy in Vietnam. These are the values of
    many Vietnamese and since the founding of the Brotherhood for
    Democracy, hundreds of people have joined our organization. We
    have 32 members working full time and part time.
        Over the 4 years, we have established a solid structure and
    various working groups to organize 16 training courses on civil
    society both online and offline and we have over 250 candidates
    trying to learn.
        And face to face training involves over 100 people who are
    concerned with Vietnam human rights. We also support the
    world's demands of labor rights and we support the fishermen to
    demand for environmental justice and lawsuits against the issue
    of Formosa following the environmental that left tons of toxins
    and fish washing ashore across six provinces in central Vietnam
    in 2016.
        We support the land rights petitioners and victims of
    government land grabs and, of course, without ongoing
    harassment from the Vietnamese authorities.
        Given that Vietnam is an only one-party state, the
    Communist Party of Vietnam does not allow civil society groups
    to operate without their knowledge or supervision.
        Because of this, it is necessary for Vietnamese authorities
    to stop the activities of various civil society groups. This
    has happened to the Brotherhood for Democracy. So that our
    organization has been harassed from the very beginning.
        From May 2014, three members--Nguyen Nam Trung, Pham Minh
    Vu and Nguyen Thi Phuong Anh--were arrested for attending the
    protest organized by workers in Binh Duong Province.
        On November 2014, our worthy brother, Truong Minh Duc and
    other member were physically attacked with severe injuries
    after supporting workers demanding for labor rights in Binh
    Duong Province.
        In December 6, 2015, our members, Nguyen Van Dai and Ly
    Quang Son, were attacked and beaten after facilitating a
    training on the Human Right Declaration on in Nghe An Province.
        And December 16, 2015, Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thu Ha were
    arrested by the authorities.
        In October 2016, eight members in central Vietnam including
    Nguyen Trung Truc, Mai Van Tam, Tran Thi Xuan, Nguyen Van
    Thanh, Nguyen Ngoc Lanh, Nguyen Van Giap, Vo The Truong and Que
    were detained and severely beaten, had their possessions
    confiscated and clothing removed before they had been bring to
    the jungle in Huong Son Forest in the Ha Tinh Province.
        In February 2017, our chairman, Pastor Nguyen Trung Ton,
    was assaulted and beaten around the feet with an iron bar,
    until now still unable to walk properly.
        From the end of July until August 2017, seven members and
    one former members--Pham Van Troi, Nguyen Trung Ton, Truong
    Minh Duc, Nguyen Trung Truc, Tran Thi Xuan, Nguyen Van Tuc, Vu
    Van Hung and Nguyen Bac Truyen were arbitrarily arrested.
        Nine members and one former member of the Brotherhood for
    Democracy were unlawfully detained between December 2015 and
    the end of 2017 for activities aimed at overthrowing the state,
    according to Article 79 of the Vietnamese penal code. Many have
    been sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
        And our remaining members are all being threatened and
    issued arrest warrants, with ongoing harassment of family
    members. Six members of us have had to flee to Thailand to seek
    asylum.
        Some members have had to flee their homes for the past
    year, with their close ones being continually harassed by
    authorities.
        And for myself, I personally have been far from home from
    August 2015 till now. I am luckier here and have safety in the
    United States, but my wife and children continue to be
    harassed.
        My wife has been attacked by local police within the
    confines of her home and my children have been detained while
    traveling to school to question them about me.
        Police have installed five cameras around my home in Saigon
    and anyone who approaches my home is questioned immediately
    after. No one has come to my home over the past 2 years.
        On behalf of the Brotherhood for Democracy, I would like to
    suggest the following. The United States Congress and the
    government call on the Vietnamese Government to end its
    crackdown on the Brotherhood for Democracy and unconditionally
    and immediately release all of our members as well as all
    prisoners of conscience, dissidents, and religious activists.
        Call on authorities to stop harassing and intimidating
    Vietnamese activists. We hope the United Nations and various
    NGOs, media, and individuals in Vietnam and around the world to
    support the Brotherhood for Democracy as well as the democracy
    movement in Vietnam.
        Members of the Brotherhood for Democracy as well as their
    families express their ongoing struggles and hope there will be
    a brighter future for the Brotherhood for Democracy as well as
    for all Vietnamese people.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Le follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much.
        Chairman Rohrabacher does have to leave.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much. I am sorry I am
    going to have to rush out. A very important call--it's really
    important. But I want to express my thanks to the witnesses.
        Thanks to the chairman. You have done a great service to
    the free people of the world today. You have put on the record
    names of people who have been oppressed and tortured, and now
    there is a record--official record--of these people.
        They--the message we will have at the end of this hearing
    to those who are the oppressed, to those who are the victims,
    they are not alone.
        The victims of tyranny in Vietnam are not alone. We are
    with them. They are on the--we are on the record now of knowing
    who you are, and that's true--as I mentioned before, that's
    true of their torturers and the villains that murder and
    repress those people.
        We need those names--you have given us a few of those as
    well--because we do believe in holding accountable the tyrants
    in this world.
        And Mr. Chairman, we need to hold accountable YouTube and
    Facebook and other American companies, as was talked about
    today, who collude--people like to use that word nowadays--who
    collude with this tyrannical gangster regime in Vietnam.
        I spent a little time with the Montagnards back in 1967 and
    it breaks my heart to know that they're being--that they found
    Christianity and that they're being oppressed because of it.
        And I know that the Cao Dai--I remember them as well--who
    were so devout even in those days. So perhaps one of the things
    we need to feel bad about in America is when we were there--
    when I was with those Montagnards we encouraged them to side
    with us, and then we ran away.
        Well, now we can make it up to the Vietnamese people to
    make sure that now, as Vietnam needs us in their confrontation
    with China as a nation, that we insist that there be political
    reform and social reform there and that the gangster regime
    gives up the power to the people of Vietnam.
        So we are siding with the people, as we should have always
    along and had courage to do so.
        Thank you all for your testimony today and thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for all the commitment you have shown to human rights
    throughout the world, especially here in Vietnam. So thank you.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Dana, and thank you for your
    leadership as well. It's all about team effort.
        Let me just ask our distinguished panellists some
    questions, and thank you all for your testimonies. Without
    objection, anything else you wanted to add to the full
    statements and thank you for the list of prisoners from Human
    Rights Watch. We need names--always need names. We compare it
    with others to make sure we do not leave anybody out
    inadvertently. So thank you for that.
        Let me just ask you, if I could, Dr. Thang, starting with
    you--on religious freedom, the designation of CPC--country of
    particular concern--was done away with during the Bush
    administration simply because of the bilateral agreement and
    promises that were made of what they called deliverables at the
    time on human rights.
        I travelled, as you might recall, on one of the many trips
    to Vietnam. I went to Hue, Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi and met
    with probably upwards of 60 different people, all the different
    religions--Venerable Thich Quang Do, like so many of my
    colleagues and I have met, who is still under pagoda arrest,
    and Dr. Li--Father Loi, all these wonderful, wonderful people--
    Cao Dai religion adherents.
        And they were hopeful. They thought that maybe something
    was going to happen for real. There were new policies in
    effect, and yet it was a total unmitigated disaster. We now
    have a new law that went in effect in January and I think some
    of the same people are saying this could be a positive
    development. We'll be sorely disappointed by it, and you might
    want to speak to that issue.
        You really did emphasize--and I am glad you did--that Cao
    Dai has been eviscerated by the government. The forced
    renunciations of faith by the Hmong and others--the Highland
    people, who are being told they can't practice their Christian
    beliefs.
        The numbers went down right before a bilateral trade
    agreement was accepted. But I will never forget the day of the
    consummation of that agreement the Vietnamese foreign ministry
    put out a statement to the effect of there's no legacy of human
    rights.
        So they did everything they could to make it look like we
    were on the verge of major positive developments and it was
    nothing but a ruse.
        And I think there's too often--so if you could speak to
    CPC, I would also raise the issue. When Nguyen Xuan Phuc, the
    President, was here in May, the communique that came out was
    very disturbing--between him and President Trump--to the effect
    that the U.S. welcomed Vietnam's ``ongoing efforts to refine
    its legal system to better protect and promote human rights''
    in the face of a gross deterioration of human rights.
        They can pass all the policies for international
    consumption that they want, but we want it on the ground to
    help people and to protect their fundamental rights.
        So how did that happen? Any of you might have any insights
    on that. I would note for the record--I mentioned it in my
    opening statement--that for three successive Congresses and
    then once as an amendment, so four times--the Vietnam Human
    Rights Act cleared the House.
        It was my bill. We worked very hard on it--totally
    bipartisan, everybody was here today. Zoe Lofgren, everybody--
    were all co-sponsors. It was totally bipartisan.
        It got over to the Senate. Holds were put on it. John Kerry
    always put a hold on it. But we know the Podesta Group worked
    overtime to defeat it, and we know there are other lobbyists
    who were trying to defeat it.
        I am wondering if maybe even that joint communique--Reuters
    suggested in an article that they had--lobbyists had had an
    impact on that joint communique from our President and
    Vietnam's President which was totally misleading.
        So if you wanted to speak to that, then I would also ask,
    if I could, Ms. PoKempner, on that cyber law, June 12th, I
    think, is when the vote might be. That could always change but
    I think that's when they're planning on it.
        Back in 2006, I held a hearing as China Commission and
    Human Rights Chairman here on the House side on what Google,
    Yahoo, Microsoft, and CISCO are doing to enable the
    dictatorship in Beijing by censoring, by tracking down
    individuals.
        Shi Tao--remember they found him via Yahoo and he got 10
    years for telling people what Tiananmen Square dos and don'ts
    were--and they were all don'ts coming from the government. Ten
    years for a simple conveyance of a message to a human rights
    group in New York City.
        I am very concerned and I know you are as well that Google,
    Facebook, YouTube have all removed content, kowtowing to Hanoi.
    We need to be, as you said too, as loud and as clear as
    possible that these U.S. corporations and multilateral
    corporations have to get some backbone and stand up to these
    dictatorships.
        I remember Jerry Yang said--Jerry Yang from Yahoo--at one
    of our hearings that he said they're removing their content in
    Vietnam--personally identifiable information--so that the
    government would have that easy access that they have had for
    years in China.
        But this is very, very disturbing--Google, Facebook,
    YouTube, and the like. You know, so it's like deja vu all over
    again. It's been banned in Vietnam. It's been worse in China.
    But now we are seeing catch-up ball on the part of the
    Vietnamese.
        So if you could start off and then I have some other
    questions as well. Maybe, Dr. Thang, and Joseph, if you would
    like.
        Mr. Thang. Yes.
        We sounded the alarm about the new law on belief and
    religion when it was still being drafted back in 2015, and we
    pointed out three areas of concern.
        One is that it still maintains the requirement for churches
    and institutions and communities to register and be recognized
    and approved by the government.
        Secondly, the language is so vague that anyone can
    interpret it whichever way he or she wants, right. Just like in
    the example that I mentioned in my testimony.
        A local authority said that, well, from now on the parish
    priest can no longer conduct a prior service at the private
    home of his parishioners and he cited the new law. The local
    authorities recited the new law to justify that.
        The third area of concern is that the definition of what
    is--what religion is, what belief is, what an adherent is--are
    very restrictive.
        For instance, the definition under the new law of an
    adherent is that he or she must be recognized by a religious
    organization, and a religion organization must be recognized by
    the government.
        In other words, now a follower--a member of an independent
    unregistered church would not be considered as a religious
    follower under the new law and, therefore, sentencing that
    person to, say, 5 years prison would now be explained as not
    religious persecution.
        So that is the trick that the Vietnamese Government is
    playing and I am afraid that we have fallen into that trap.
        Now, not too long ago, I had a one-on-one hour-long meeting
    with the new Ambassador to Vietnam, Kritenbrink. He is very
    concerned about human rights issues in Vietnam--very genuine--
    but he's very new.
        And I also spent--I had meetings with the new Ambassador-
    at-Large on international religious freedom, Sam Brownback.
    He's a champion, and I made two comments--recommendations to
    both.
        One is to place Vietnam at least on the watch list. At this
    time--because this is a very serious time as Vietnam is still
    deciding on how to interpret its law on belief and religion.
        If we wait for another year it might be too late because
    they already have redefined other language intentionally left
    vague so as to further restrict religious freedom.
        So placing Vietnam on the watch list now for at least 2
    years, that will send a very strong signal that we are
    watching. That hasn't happened.
        Hopefully, after a few months for these two diplomats to
    get to know more of Vietnam, maybe with some nudges from
    Congress, maybe Vietnam would be placed on either the CPC list
    or the watch list.
        The second recommendation is that for Mr. Kritenbrink and
    also Sam Brownback and others, to hold periodic roundtable
    meetings with religious leaders of persecuted communities in
    Vietnam--indigenous and religious communities in Vietnam, just
    like the IRF roundtables that are being held here--and I know
    that Scott Flipse has attended quite a few of them--and make
    that into routine.
        Initially, the Government of Vietnam would protest against
    that, would block people from coming. But if we keep doing that
    every 3 months, for instance, then slowly Vietnam would accept
    that as a fait accompli, and that would bring confidence to
    those communities and it will assure that anything happened in
    those communities will be known by the U.S. Government
    immediately, or at least by the next roundtable meeting.
        So those are my two recommendations and I would like to
    offer the same recommendations at this hearing.
        Mr. Cao. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that, you know,
    both you and I--we fully understand that the concept of
    religion and religious faith is more than simply going to
    church every Sunday and then go home.
        We fully understand that the practice of faith, which
    includes fighting for social justice, advocating for the
    oppressed, for the poor, for the elderly, all of that is
    encompassed in religious faith.
        And with the law on religion and belief, with the vagueness
    of how they define religion, any of these acts can be
    considered as acts against the state and be prosecuted.
        So, again, that is something that we have to be concerned
    about and to have to pay attention to. And, you know, there is
    an old saying that with the Communists--do not listen to what
    they say but watch what they do.
        What they say is very rosy, oftentimes painted. You know,
    when you look at Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi through the Travel
    Channel, everybody thinks that wow, these are a paradise that
    we should go and visit. But in reality, Vietnam is an oppressed
    state.
        People are being routinely arrested, prosecuted under
    dubious laws, tortured routinely, and that has to be revealed
    to the world to let people understand that Vietnam is more than
    simply Saigon and Ho Chi Minh City through the Travel Channel.
        Mr. Smith. Ms. PoKempner.
        Ms. PoKempner. Just to add, because I am a law professor, I
    wanted to point out to you that freedom of opinion and belief
    are among the very strongest human rights that exist.
        They don't admit of any limitation at all, and so when we
    learn that things like forced renunciation of faith is still
    occurring, this is a violation without a conceivable excuse and
    we should be reacting very strongly to it.
        On the law, I think you're right to pay special attention
    to this. This is one of the most oppressive cybersecurity laws
    I've read, and I've read quite a few now, and it puts companies
    in a tremendous bind.
        As you know, any company is obliged to respect the law of
    the market it operates in. But in this case it's going to make
    many American companies have this direct conflict that they
    could be placed right back where Google and Microsoft were in
    China, as you observed, and be forced to essentially condemn
    people who would be fully protected under either the laws of
    our Constitution or the laws of the United Nations--that
    Vietnam as freely agreed to--and condemn them.
        And it's going to be essentially a move that puts to them
    this stark choice--either help us commit human rights
    violations or get out of this market.
        And if that is, indeed, the choice and if the Congress
    cares about U.S. companies as well as human rights, it ought to
    be thinking well, what does this mean for our giving access to
    Vietnam on a whole--you know, to our markets to Vietnam--what
    does this really mean about international security and the
    freedom of companies to operate across borders.
        So there are very profound questions for regulators here
    and they're not only about blaming the companies. The companies
    will have to make their decisions but they're in a difficult
    position.
        It's people who control the law and the regulation
    throughout our Government. We deeply appreciate your role, Mr.
    Chairman. I deeply appreciate the many constructive things that
    Representative Rohrabacher and many others have done throughout
    the years.
        I resonate with pain on these tales of Montagnards. I work
    to actually identify and protect Montagnards from repatriation
    on Hong Kong. There's a long and very noble history of this
    House in trying to act on Vietnam's human rights.
        But we need the whole of government. We need the entire
    administration. We need the Senate, too. And everyone has to
    pull together to send this message.
        In our experience, the Vietnamese Government is pragmatic.
    When it feels it has something to lose, it will act, and in our
    experience, the Vietnamese Government is complex, just like
    most governments.
        It has people who are very entrenched in the old ways,
    people who are thinking about new ways and trying to be
    progressive and keep the door open to the modern world.
        So you have to deal with it and give it time to adjust. But
    it won't happen without incentives. So we raised a number of
    different avenues--that they all have to be considered.
        We are there to support you.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        Mr. Le, if you could. We know about the Formosa
    environmental disaster, but if you could bring some additional
    focus on it.
        How did you become an advocate? The background of the
    Brotherhood of Democracy--a little insight into that, if you
    would, and also to make very clear--we are concerned--I am
    concerned, as chairman, for your family still in Vietnam and
    your wife and child--if they are threatened in any way.
        In the past we have had--Nguyen Van Dai's wife here who
    testified on his behalf--was brilliant in her testimony--like
    our witnesses today, just got it very clear, very precise, and
    very eloquent as to what needs to be done and what the
    situation is on the ground.
        And he is on his way to freedom right now but we can't
    announce it yet. But I just want to say, we want to give you
    every assurance that we will absolutely go to bat for your
    family if we hear that something has happened.
        So please know that it matters a great deal to my
    colleagues and I on both sides of the aisle and let the
    Vietnamese Government take note of that, because that crosses a
    huge bright line of demarcation if they were to retaliate
    against them.
        But could you elaborate, if you could, on the environmental
    disaster?
        Mr. Le. Yes. Formosa is--from April 2016, the Formosa
    company, they waste toxins to environmental and the Formosa
    they pay $500 million to--for their people there. But actually
    our fishermen there don't receive any money from--the
    compensation from Formosa, and the compensation it come to
    another group of people, and we know that and we organized a
    team to come to the fishermen--come to the village to help the
    people to make document--to make the legal documentation,
    submit to the local authority to ask for the compensation from
    the Formosa. That is the first thing we have to do.
        Secondly, we cooperate with other NGO and we ask some civil
    society local to organize some work group to help the people
    and as well as we are together because the people we are
    together to support the people there to make the news and bring
    the things to the public areas to internets.
        That's it--the two things we have done for our--for the
    issue of Formosa.
        Mr. Cao. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that the
    system--there's no transparent system compensation. I recently
    spoke with a bishop from Vietnam and he told me that they don't
    know what has been happening with the $500 million that was
    being allegedly paid by Formosa.
        Most of the victims have not received the money.
    Ironically, the fishermen of Nghe An Province they were at the
    epicenter of the disaster, and based on my information and
    belief, those people were not even in the compensation package.
        So, again, I would ask that the Congress request that
    Vietnam implement a transparent system of compensation similar
    to what happened during the BP oil spill here in the United
    States.
        It was being controlled by and oversaw by a Federal judge
    down in New Orleans. I would highly recommend that a similar
    system would be implemented in Vietnam with similar reporting
    procedures.
        If you would excuse me, I have to meet this deadline for a
    few minutes.
        Mr. Smith. Yes. Dr. Thang.
        Mr. Thang. I would like to add information regarding the
    disaster caused by Formosa steel plants in 2016.
        First of all, we have--we know that--I have been in touch
    with communities in that area every week and the fishing
    industry is dead.
        It may take decades to revive it. So there's a huge loss of
    livelihood among the fishermen, the fishing communities, and
    many of those are actually Catholic parishes living along the
    coast of five provinces.
        Now, one entire province that is the most populace province
    that got affected severely by the environmental disaster and
    that is Nghe An Province.
        It is completely excluded from the compensation package,
    and that's why there's a lot of protest and that's why--and
    among all those affected the Catholic parishes were at the
    forefront of the demonstration to demand fair, just
    compensation.
        And that's why the government created the Red Flag
    Association, to suppress these communities--these advocates.
        The second aspect I would like to bring to your attention
    is the health issue. They're documenting right now and there
    are more and more reported incidents of miscarriage among the
    villagers affected by the environmental ecological disaster and
    there is more reported prevalence of cancer cases in those
    areas, and there has been no studies along that line.
        And finally, human trafficking--because of the loss of
    livelihood so a lot of these younger villagers, formerly
    fishermen, now have to join the labor export program of the
    Government of Vietnam.
        And we have cases--we know cases where a person applying to
    go to Taiwan or to South Korea had to pay $16,000 in service
    fees.
        Now the law would cap that to just 1 month of salary per
    year of contract--say, $2,000 a month for 3 years of contract,
    that it should not exceed more than 3 years. So no more than
    $6,000.
        But a lot of these villagers didn't know the law and they
    had to pay $16,000 and they had to mortgage off their homes and
    farmlands and the homes and farmlands of their parents and
    siblings.
        And according to our calculations, most of them would still
    be in debt after the 3 years working overseas. And for the
    first time last year, the number of migrant workers exported
    out of countries exceeded 100,000 by far. It was, like,
    120,000.
        So I am afraid that human trafficking--labor trafficking is
    on the rise because government officials are taking advantage
    of the misery caused by the Formosa-induced disaster--
    environmental disaster.
        Mr. Le. Thank you very much for invitation, for inviting me
    here. So now I got bright news. I did receive around 2\1/2\
    hours ago. I am here on behalf of the Brotherhood for
    Democracy.
        I would like to thank you very much for letting us meet the
    chairman and some Congress members here and various people have
    support for the Brotherhood for Democracy.
        Two and a half hours ago, I was with a Brother and his wife
    and with his sister was released and now is on a flight to
    Frankfurt and hope they will arrive to Frankfurt around
    midnight, the time of Washington, DC. His name is Nguyen Van
    Dai and Le Thu Ha, and his wife is also on the flight now.
        So thank you very much for your support and help the
    Brotherhood for--during that time. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Smith. Through the time I will just ask two final
    questions, and thank you very much, and I think, Dr. Thang, you
    are aware that I am the author of the Trafficking Victims
    Protection Act.
        I've been very concerned that for 6 straight years Vietnam
    has got a Tier 2 rating. Minimally, it should be on the watch
    list--if not Tier 3, where I think it really belongs.
        They do have a sex trafficking problem but I think the
    labor trafficking problem is enormous, and we've had specific
    hearings in this subcommittee just on that, and I wondered if
    any of you would want to speak to that. The TIP report isn't
    out yet.
        Designations probably have been made already. We tried to
    weigh in as best we could as a subcommittee for countries that
    ought to be Tier 3.
        But if you could speak to that, and I would just point out
    one other law that I wrote that took 8 years to get out of the
    Senate, five times passed in the House--known as International
    Megan's Law.
        It's now been in effect for a little over a year. We notice
    countries of destination when a convicted pedophile is
    travelling. Its inspiration came from Megan Kanka, my home town
    constituent who was brutally murdered by and sexually abused by
    a convicted pedophile who lived across the street.
        So there are Megan's Laws in every single state of the
    union and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. But,
    frankly, internationally, there's not many Megan's Laws.
        This law, as I think you know, notices countries of
    destination when a convicted pedophile plans to travel and
    there's a very severe penalty if they don't notice us, us being
    state police and then State Department.
        And the Angel Watch program now has been built and fully
    and very robustly staffed, and a little over a year in
    operation 3,600 convicted pedophiles have been noticed to
    countries. Many of them have been turned back because we know
    why they're going. They're on secret sex tourism trips to
    exploit little girls and little boys.
        While Vietnam, as it turns out, is a destination country
    for many, we know other places like Thailand are working
    overtime to deny entry into their country when we notice such
    an exploiter coming their way.
        Vietnam has been unresponsive. We are trying to tell them
    so and so is coming--here's their record and they could abuse
    your children horribly--and yet they are unresponsive.
        To me, it's an insight like few others about an
    indifference that is so callous toward their own children.
        Secondly, on the issue of--we just, sadly, remember the
    29th anniversary of Tiananmen Square. Much of the world seems
    to want to forget it. Certainly, in China, they forcibly forget
    it in terms of their news media and what they teach their
    children in school.
        But there is a concern that with demonstrations against
    Chinese investments and incursions into the South China Sea or
    environmental disasters that these people who will protest will
    be met with violence and there's a very big anti-China
    demonstration planned for June 10th and I am wondering what
    your concerns might be and is there anything we should be
    doing, our Ambassador, to mitigate what could be bloodshed
    meted out by the Vietnamese Government.
        Anybody want to take those?
        Mr. Thang. Yes. About human trafficking--yes, over the
    years we have rescued thousands of victims in destination
    countries and we continue to work on that--to rescue more
    victims.
        However, we cannot stop the flow if we don't do anything--
    if we cannot stop it at the roots--that is, in the source
    country, and there is no way for us to go to Vietnam and stop
    it.
        However, there might be an opportunity here because of the
    Formosa-induced ecological disaster. I would like to propose
    that we, our Government, and through Congress we ask USAID to
    have programs in those areas to help develop livelihood
    opportunities for these fishermen who have been affected--to
    have development projects and work directly with the churches--
    independent churches--the Catholic churches that have been
    doing that.
        The Diocese of Vinh has been doing that. They don't ever
    get funded by USAID. Now, not too long ago, just last month,
    again, Ambassador Sam Brownback brought into our roundtable
    meeting representatives of the USAID offices and I think that
    they are now willing and open to suggestions that USAID should
    fund directly to independent religious organizations to do the
    good work that they have been doing.
        So USAID, if they are in there, they can work with and
    provide technical assistance and coaching to the real people
    doing the real work on the ground, especially the independent
    churches, to develop livelihood projects.
        At the same time, they can educate the people on the
    ground. There are simple tips that they can learn on how to
    avoid becoming victims of human trafficking, especially labor
    trafficking.
        For instance, you should not sign a contract without
    reading it. You should not agree to go overseas and work
    overseas on a tourist visa, for instance.
        There are simple red flags and we have developed materials.
    But the challenge is to get those materials and that
    information directly to the villagers that are vulnerable to
    human trafficking in Vietnam.
        Thank you.
        Ms. PoKempner. I would simply urge that when you look at
    this problem of human trafficking, it ought to be a topic on
    which you can constructively engage the government.
        The Government of Vietnam does spend money and does have a
    bureaucracy that is devoted to this problem as well as related
    problems.
        But, as you pointed out, it's not doing enough. But I think
    this is at least an area where cooperation and engagement is
    promising as well as the application of American aid.
        I would urge you to look not only at victims of sexual
    trafficking but labor trafficking generally. We are doing a lot
    of research on trafficking in the fishing industries and I am
    sure as Dr. Thang knows, this is a big, big problem in Thailand
    and a lot of the labor is coming from Burma and Vietnam.
        So there's a regional interest in getting a hold of this
    and this is affecting American companies when they discover
    that there are marketing goods produced by slave labor.
        So I think this is a very promising area of engagement
    where, fortunately, economic interests and human rights
    interests align well.
        Mr. Smith. I will just conclude. Any further comments you
    might want to make if you do--yes, Doctor.
        Mr. Thang. Relating to the case of Nguyen Van Dai and his
    wife and his partner, Le Thu Ha, I would like to point out that
    collaboration with other governments might make a difference.
        I have noted that over the past year there has been
    increasing collaboration between human rights offices at our
    U.S. Embassy in Vietnam and other Embassies such as the United
    Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, and E.U., for
    instance.
        Mr. Smith. And Germany.
        Mr. Thang. And Germany, yes--and Germany, definitely. And
    in this case of Mr. Dai, our public--most of the credit should
    go to VETO!, our long-time partner in Germany, and the
    Government of Germany.
        They have been very strong on this. I know that they have
    been working with our own State Department on this case, and I
    hope that by more collaboration like that, especially you
    already know about the Interparliamentarian Panel on Freedom of
    Religion and Belief.
        We are working with them and they are now connecting
    themselves--networking themselves with ASEAN parliamentarians
    for human rights in ASEAN.
        So a network like that would really, really help to further
    many of our common causes.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. I thank you.
        I thank you very, very much for your insights, for your
    expertise, your leadership, and for your patience, having a
    late start because of the votes.
        Again, our bill that's pending--hopefully it will be marked
    up soon. If ever there was a time--and it does call for a
    designation of CPC, country of particular concern, because of
    religious persecution by the government. I will never forget
    talking to Rabbi Saperstein, who was the predecessor,
    obviously, to Sam Brownback as the Ambassador-at-Large for
    religious freedom. He did a wonderful job.
        But when he was meeting with Tran Thi Hong, she was
    beaten--beaten. Government thugs beat the wife of a pastor,
    Nguyen Cong Chinh.
        I mean, if that isn't a wake-up call, when the highest
    official for religious freedom in-country--in Vietnam--and
    that's how they respond. It shows the animosity that continues
    to be animosity on steroids.
        So we have to push back hard, and I think, as you pointed
    out, Ms. PoKempner, they take notice. When we say something, we
    mean it, it's predictable, we are not kidding, we are not
    vacillating, things will happen, and particularly when there's
    a penalty attached to it.
        So CPC has at least 18 prescribed remedies--penalties--that
    are very significant. And I know when other countries have been
    put on lists like that--they know we mean it--it has an impact.
        So let's hope the administration does the right thing on
    that.
        I thank you so much. Hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]